Our current political moment poses challenges unlike anything I thought I would face as an FCC Commissioner. This Administration has been on a campaign to censor and control since, well, before day one. And since day one the FCC has been implementing the will of this Administration and undermining the First Amendment at every turn.
The First Amendment has protected our fundamental right to speak freely and to hold power to account since 1791. It is foundational to our democracy. Today, the greatest threat to that freedom is coming from our own government.
Silencing dissenting voices is not a show of strength – it’s a sign of weakness. It comes from a place of fear. Fear that opposing views, rather than presidential decrees, will win out in the public debate of ideas.
Over the last few months, I’ve found myself aligned with voices with which I never imagined I’d agree. Why? Because across the ideological spectrum there remains a shared belief that the First Amendment is fundamental to democracy and is worth fighting for, even – and especially – when it’s politically inconvenient.
The Administration’s coordinated efforts to censor and control are manifesting in a multitude of ways. In the Tech/Media/Telecom ecosystem, they have initiated investigations and floated debilitating rate regulation schemes that target national network broadcasters for their newsrooms’ editorial decisions; harassed private companies for their Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion efforts; and threatened tech companies that respond to consumer demands for content moderation and fact-checking. Separately, they have attempted to shutter Voice of America and sought retribution against lawful residents that protest Administration policies.
They are banning books and seeking to erase history from the public record and from our national museums. And they are targeting law firms, unions, and all those who have the skills and the will to stand up for the victims of this campaign of censorship and control. And, of course, I cannot leave out the fact that they have been firing presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed commissioners of multi-member independent agencies who dare to speak the truth.
Broadly speaking, these efforts are unprecedented and indefensible.
Regrettably, the FCC has engaged in actions that are antithetical to the goals of the Communications Act, the mandate of the agency, and the guarantees of the First Amendment.
The FCC’s licensing authority is being weaponized to chill speech and to punish the press. We are witnessing a dangerous precedent: the transformation of an independent regulator into an instrument of political censorship. This FCC has made clear that it will go after any news outlet that dares to report the truth if that truth is unfavorable to this Administration.
This isn’t the first time that the FCC has faced Administration pressure to weaponize its broadcast licensing authority. In 1939, FDR named Larry Fly chairman of the FCC. Chairman Fly, best known for his focus on addressing monopolization of the airwaves, called attention to the fact that NBC and CBS could “say what more than half of the people may or may not hear,” and he underscored that “Democracy [could not] rest upon so frail a reed.”
During this time, FDR was convinced that newspaper publishers were biased against him, and he saw radio as the next avenue through which the press would provide unfavorable coverage of him. So, FDR asked Fly to ban newspapers from getting FM licenses. Rather than capitulating to Administration pressure, Fly refused to take punitive, politically motivated action against the press. Instead, he underscored that the FCC would not ban radio licenses for newspapers, and he reaffirmed the agency’s commitment to diversity in media control.
Again, during the Kennedy Administration, the FCC faced pressure from the White House. Reacting to an unfavorable NBC news report, President Kennedy called on Chairman Newton Minow to withdraw NBC’s licenses. And the next day, Minow told a Kennedy aide, “tell the president he is lucky to have an FCC chairman who does not always do what he is told.” Minow stood up against the weaponization of the agency’s licensing authority, an action for which President Kennedy later thanked him.
This is what courage looks like – FCC chairs refusing to wield the agency’s licensing authority as a weapon in contravention of the First Amendment and the Communications Act, even in the face of political pressure.
In addition to undermining informed civic engagement, there are serious health and safety consequences to silencing broadcasters. Imagine your local TV or radio station goes dark because the FCC doesn’t like something an anchor said. That’s not just a media story. That’s a threat to public safety.
Local news provides lifesaving information during storms, wildfires, and other emergencies. It serves veterans, seniors, and rural communities. But partisan politics is now putting these resources at risk. The FCC should not be in the business of controlling access to vital local information. We should be promoting free and open access to the news.
Unfortunately, the Administration efforts to censor and control appear to be working, at least for now. Some media outlets are finding it easier to retreat in the face of government threats, veiled or otherwise, than to be responsive to their audiences.
Speaking as a government regulator, we need journalists to report the truth even when it cuts against our arguments or our political biases. And corporate parents should give journalists the independence they need. A free press requires free journalists.
On the international front, Voice of America and Radio Marti were once models of press freedom in contrast to propaganda regimes like those in Russia and China. Efforts to shutter these institutions or to undermine their independence sends a global message: America no longer practices what it preaches. This is extremely concerning.
The press is the Fourth Estate. The delicate system of checks and balances upon which American democracy is built does not function without a free press. To the journalists out there: Do not capitulate – continue to speak up and hold power to account.
The Need for Agency Independence
The FCC is supposed to make decisions based on law, facts, and technical expertise – not politics. We take our direction from the Constitution, the law, and the public.
That is what Congress intended. When Congress considered the establishment of a Federal Radio Commission in the late 1920s, it entertained the possibility of vesting the power in the Secretary of Commerce alone. This idea, however, was struck down. And it was struck down specifically because Congress feared that a single individual, subject to political will, would possess too much control over who could operate the cutting-edge communications technology of the time, radio.
Ultimately, after deliberation, Congress concluded that a multi-member Commission was the best choice. As Commerce Secretary Herbert Hoover testified to Congress, “we cannot allow any single person or group to place themselves in a position where they can censor the material which shall be broadcast.”
The relationship between the power vested in the FCC and the duty to uphold First Amendment rights was unambiguous from the inception of the agency. Congress’s message to us could not be clearer: The FCC was designed to be an independent expert agency led by a multi-member, multi-party Commission.
Now, however, we must protect the independence of independent agencieslike the FCC. Even when this Administration holds so much power, it cannot tolerate disagreement or dissent. And that is why it continues to chip away at First Amendment rights.
I refuse to stay quiet while the government weaponizes its regulatory tools to undermine the First Amendment. This is how I’m using my voice. I encourage you to use yours too.
And if I’m removed from my seat on the Commission, let it be said plainly: It wasn’t because I failed to do my job. It’s because I insisted on doing it.
Commissioner Anna M. Gomez has served in her current position at the Federal Communications Commission since September 2023. She has been a senior policy advisor at the U.S. Department of State, Deputy Administrator of NTIA, and served in a number of senior positions at the FCC.
This article is adapted from remarks Commissioner Gomez delivered at a Media Institute Communications Forum luncheon in Washington, D.C., on May 15, 2025.